25 posts categorized "Check Out..."

December 02, 2007

An Op-Ed debunks the "tort tax"

Just saw a nice Op-Ed at the Anniston Star.  Here's the conclusion, but the whole thing is worth the short read.

But in his zeal to protect Big Business, Fuller places the cart before the horse and fails to consider just who is to blame for the “tort tax” that he decries, for if there were no unsafe products, then it would not be necessary for Americans to hire tort lawyers in the first place. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, every single year there are about 4,500 deaths and 13.7 million injuries associated with just 15 categories of consumer products, not including automobiles.

Add to these the deaths and injuries caused annually by toxic substances and pharmaceutical products and it should be obvious that the real “tort tax” is paid not in the form of dollars, but in the deaths and injuries caused by industry negligence. There is no doubt that this “tort tax” will soar if Fuller and his strategically named “Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse” get their way.

The Anniston Star » The real tort tax

I wish someone would put a dollar figure on the cost of those deaths and injuries. God knows the "reform" movement doesn't give a damn about human lives.

Technorati Tags: , ,

December 01, 2007

Check out The Committee for Justice For All

Once upon a time, I had a link to these guys because of all the good work they do.  Somehow, the link disappeared.  But thankfully, they haven't.  Be sure to check them out!

The Committee for Justice for All is a Northeastern Pennsylvania advocacy group dedicated to preserving the Constitutional right of all Americans to have a jury of their peers hear their cases and decide what's fair.

We believe the right to a jury is as fundamental to American freedom as the right to vote. The American jury system is the only way average citizens can take on the rich and powerful, and be assured justice. It is what separates Democracy from tyranny.

 The Committee for Justice for All: About Us

Got any other civil justice links I need to know about?

November 28, 2007

The Texas Supreme Court is a "safety net" for corporate defendants

I'm sorry I never met Bob Kraft when I lived in Texas.  His blog, P.I.S.S.D., is chock full of humor, sarcasm, and critical examination of the civil justice system.  In other words, he's a man after my own heart.  Today, he wrote about a new article in the Dallas Morning News that points out how pro-business, anti-consumer the Texas Supreme Court is.  Here's an excerpt from the article:

The incident has added fire to a decade-long debate over whether Texas' highest court favors big business in lawsuits.

The perception is bolstered by data showing that the court's rulings increasingly favor defendants in lawsuits – upward of 87 percent of the time, one study said...

"I'd say that right now Texas is on the forefront of the business-friendly legal environment," said Rogge Dunn at Clouse Dunn Khoshbin LLP in Dallas, who handles some workers' compensation cases. "If you're an insurer here or a large company getting sued, you've got the Supreme Court as your safety net."

P.I.S.S.D. -- Personal Injury, Social Security Disability. Dallas Texas Lawyers: Link of the Day - Texas Supreme Court Favors Big Business

Visit P.I.S.S.D. if you want the link to the full article.

June 21, 2007

State Farm Acknowledges The Efficiency Of The Tort System

State Farm is dropping its rates in Colorado because they've returned to the "Pottery Barn" rule of "you break it, you bought it." 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the largest auto insurer in Colorado, on Monday announced it is lowering overall insurance rates by 7.2 percent. The change becomes effective July 16.

The insurer estimates that the change will save its Colorado customers a combined $38.8 million per year. This marks the ninth rate decrease for State Farm since July 2003.

The company credited the premium decline, at least in part, to Colorado's change from "no-fault" auto insurance - where injuries in car accidents were paid regardless of fault - to a tort-liability system, where at-fault drivers are responsible for all the damages.

Source: The Denver Post - State Farm slates rate cut, citing tort-system savings

Odd that the evil, bad, inefficient tort system is saving consumers money, isn't it?

Have John Engler and the National Association of Manufacturers been naughty?

I haven't fact checked any of this, but one blogger points out the possibility that the NAM is illegally funneling money to other tort reform groups.

In 2005, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) funneled $870k through the American Justice Partnership (AJP) to American Tort Reform, according to the 2005 AJP 990.  Another $451k went to pay a "service fee". Total AJP expenditures were only $1.7 milllion.

Was AJP set up in 2005 to facilitate NAM's contribution to American Tort Reform? Is NAM legally prohibited from contributing directly to American Tort Reform?

The answer could, in part,  depend on which American Tort Reform received the $870k, the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) which is a 501(c)(6) or the American Tort Reform Foundation (ATRAF), a 501(c)(3).

This is not the first time that I have suspected NAM of disguising illegal contributions. Last year, I speculated here in the TPM Cafe about whether the 2004 $650k grant made by Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform to the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights (NAWER) was funded by NAM. NAM is prohibited from contributing directly to NAWER by law

Source: American Justice Partnership, Another NAM Scam | TPMCafe

I'll do a little digging and keep my eyes open for more about this story.

June 19, 2007

Is "trial lawyer" losing its stigma?

The triumph of trial lawyers in the 2006 election might mean just that: 

The days when Republicans can win an election by smearing a candidate as a “trial lawyer” are over.

18 “trial lawyers” ran for Congress in 2006. 14 of them won.

Source: Stop Cornyn » Blog Archive » The Death of a False Right-Wing Talking Point

Then again, it could have been anti-Republican backlash.  The article is also a good read for explaining why the Republicans embrace tort "reform" so much - it puts the screws to the Democrats. 

Live in Michigan? Don't buy cheap crap from China - here's why.

The law firm of Thompson, O'Neil, & VanderVeen in Traverse City, Michigan posted today about what "reform" has done to Michigan. 

These products bear an additional risk for Michigan residents, since after tort "reform" the seller of the product is not legally responsible for defects or injuries they cause.  Further, the Chinese government doesn't allow its industries to be sued (particularly since most are government-owned).  As a result, when a "Thomas" occurs in Michigan, if it causes catastrophic injuries to someone, no one is responsible and has to stand behind it.

Source: TOV Blog: Product injuries and the Flat Earth

So what happens if a person on public assistance gets hurt by say, poisonous toothpaste from China?  Why, the generous taxpayers of Michigan get to pick up the tab for their treatment.  Even if they bought the toothpaste from a wealthy store like Wal-Mart, Target, etc. 

That the "reformers" talk up the supposed "tort tax" but refuse to acknowledge the costs of "reform" to taxpayers speaks volumes as to their dishonesty.

 

June 17, 2007

How it was in the good old days - before greedy trial lawyers ruined America

The problem with trial lawyers is that they think they have the right to tell business owners how best to run their businesses.  With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, trial lawyers point the finger of blame whenever an unfortunate business makes a prudent, but incorrect decision.

Greedy trial lawyers meddle in virtually every industry and drive up the prices of all our products and services.  Every business decision made has to take into consideration the predatory litigation lobby, and not what's best for the business.  No wonder so many businesses are driven into bankruptcy!

The situation is only as bad as it is because activist judges and politicians in the wallet of the trial bar extended tort doctrines to dubious causes of action.  It didn't used to be this way.  There once was a time when corporations were free to run their businesses as they saw fit, and when entrepreneurs weren't held hostage by trial lawyers. 

If only we had meaningful tort reform, we could return to a time of fairness and efficiency in commerce.  A time perhaps best exemplified by the manner in which White Star Lines handled the tragic loss of the Titanic.  Thanks to a common-sense attitude towards compensating the victims, the management of White Star saved the company from ruin.  Were an identical tragedy to occur today, the company would surely be devoured by ravenous trial lawyers and greedy family members unwilling to accept reasonable compensation.

Let's take a trip back to the good old days and see how White Star Lines handled the crisis:

In 2002, new evidence surfaced, revealing that the Titanic’s owners expected, and in fact demanded fees for the return of bodies.White Star was the Enron of its day; a succession of callous acts without end. Through letters that still survive, historians have long known that Ismay’s line notified the widows of the Titanic’s bandsmen (notwithstanding the fact that their husbands did much to prevent panic on the port side by playing cheery ragtime music) that 75% of the money owed them was being withheld, based on the premise that their husbands had entertained passengers only halfway through one leg of what was to have been a two-way trip. Furthermore, White Star judged that it was only fair to warn the widows that there would be little left over from the remaining 25% because they would have to “settle a bill” for the loss of their husbands’ uniforms.

In February 2002, documentary film-maker Rip Mackenzie sent a dispatch describing a letter demonstrating once and for all time that there was probably no subterranean marsh into which White Star was unwilling to descend.

Written on White Star stationary and dated two weeks after the sinking, the letter was addressed to Sarah Gill of Somerset, England, in reply to her inquiry about the fate of second class passenger John Gill, her childhood sweetheart and husband of two months.

The owners of the Titanic demanded of Sarah a fee of 20 pounds ($1400 in year 2002 dollars), or her husband’s body would “regrettably” have to be buried in Halifax. White Star used this letter as an opportunity to stress that the sinking of the Royal Mail Steamer Titanic was no one’s responsibility . . . as if driving a ship full speed ahead into the night, toward an ice field about which the bridge had been repeatedly warned . . as if . . .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The sinking was an unfortunate accident, [for which] we cannot be held responsible. We regret that we do not see our way to bring home the bodies of those recovered free of expense, and in cases where it is desired for this to be done, it can be carried out only if the body was in a fit state to be returned, and upon receiving a deposit of 20 pounds on account of the expenses.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the precedent of how White Star treated with widows of Wallace Hartley, Jock Hume, and the other bandsmen (whose families found settlement of the “uniform account” doubly difficult after corporate lawyers declared violinists and cellists “not crew, but officially passengers, therefore not covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act”), the Sarah Gill discovery should bring no sense of surprise. The behavior of J. Bruce Ismay and his legal team at White Star begins to look increasingly analogous to a car thief who manages to get away with billing his victims for the labor of dismantling their cars and selling the parts.

Source: Charles Pellegrino Web Site

Remember White Star Lines the next time some corporate sock puppet tells you we need tort reform.  If it weren't for "greedy trial lawyers" it's entirely possible that airlines would bill the families of dead captains for the cost of their uniforms. 

Effects of Tort "Reform" in Texas are Mixed

The Dallas Morning News has a fairly balanced article about the effect of tort "reform" on doctors and patients.   An excerpt of the most powerful story is below:

Naydene Lambert's family was ready to sue the hospital when she died after a routine colonoscopy last June.

The Gordonville woman developed a blood clot in her lungs. She didn't get blood-thinning medicine, despite a history of the problem and obvious varicose veins signaling potential clotting problems, her daughters say.

"We're not sue-happy people at all, but they killed our mother," daughter Patsy Wertz said.

But because Ms. Lambert, 73, didn't earn any money, they couldn't ask for lost wages.

That left pain and suffering – a claim that requires lots of costly experts and, because of the $250,000 damage cap, holds zero hope of a substantial award.

After expenses and attorney fees, the family would probably end up with nothing from a lawsuit, even if they won, lawyers told the family.  (Emphasis added.)

Source: How tort reform has affected four people | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Business

And that's the number-one reason tort "reform" is unfair - if you're a stay-at-home parent or a retiree, you or your family might not even be able to bring a truly legitimate lawsuit.  But, if you make six-figures (like most people in the "reform" movement do), your damages will be high enough to ensure your case will make financial sense.

The article also tells the story of two doctors who are in Texas at least in part because of the "reform" legislation passed in 2004.  While both doctors liked the damage caps, one chose to move to Brownwood because he wanted small-town life, and the other doctor chose Corpus Christi because his brother is a cardiologist there.  Another interesting tidbit from the article: Missouri has a $500k cap on noneconomic damages and Texas has a cap of $250k.  A urologist in Missouri will pay $60,000 per year in malpractice premiums, while a urologist in Texas will pay $2,000.  The damage caps in Missouri are twice as high, but the malpractice premiums are 30x higher...  So why not tie insurance premiums to damage caps?  You know, offer to institute $250k caps if malpractice insurers will cut their rates to $2,000 per year?  Somehow, I don't think they'd go for it.

June 13, 2007

Bill Daniels on the importance of being a trial lawyer

I saw a post today at Billdanielsblog.com and it included this quote from Alexander Hamilton. 

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83 (one of my favorite quotes):

"The friends and adversaries of (the proposed federal constitution), if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government."  (A "palladium," by the way, is "anything believed to provide protection or safety.")

Source: California Insurance, Personal Injury and Wage Hour Law Blog: Why personal injury lawyers help keep our country strong.

The rest of his post is worth reading, too.